Hi,
Do we really need MQA ?. The following article explains some aspects.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution/
All that will be known from an MQA recording will be that the audio has been processed, and it cannot guarantee that every part of the chain affected, has been reversed.
MQA is a mathematical process, that has been used in many other parts of the technology industry, and we should not require a third party to implement this, and charge a fee to every part of the audio chain, which includes CD manufacturing.
The studios should be implementing a similar MQA process as standard, since this a known process of reversing the affects of a filter (for example).
Studios may already be implementing MQA aspects already, and stated MQA gains of processing may be minimal – a single filter will not affect the sound (see reference above page 3 – temporal blur).
Every piece of domestic DAC hardware will need to implement the MQA process solution – else you will not be notified that the recording is MQA approved.
What has been stated is that the effects of filtering is cumulative (see link – page 3 temporal blur), and as such, as single filter which is the final link in the chain, which is your DAC does NOT need to be MQA approved – i.e. you can use your existing DAC with negligible impact.
Remastering of CD’s as we have seen are available, may already include this process to some extent – so no requirement to purchase again.
People state that they cannot hear above 20kHz, and as such MQA process is of no benefit to them.
The current high sample rate processing may negate the benefits of MQA since the filters (stated to be the issue), may not impact the sound in the frequency range of hearing. That is, current DSD, Pure Audio, DVD-A products are sufficient and MQA offers no benefit.
The stated implementation of MQA on CD’s whereby the 3 LSB’s are used to provide the upper frequencies above 20kHz, should not be used or encouraged, given many people cannot hear above 20kHz, and this reduction of usable bits for the normal recording to 13bits falls significantly below the red book standard.
In addition, it has not been shown that an MQA encoded CD does NOT impact the sound.
The use of any other processing in the audio chain in the domestic environment may negate any MQA gains, and as such, the extra fees applied to the recording for MQA Ltd costs and anticipated benefits, may be fruitless.
To summarise, MQA recordings will increase the costs of recordings to the user, people will be encouraged to buy new equipment (which is NOT required), and it has not been proven to be beneficial over existing high sample rate formats. The MQA process should be implemented by the recording studios anyway – and their failure to implement the mathematical process (which is not patentable – anyone can do it), is something that should be questioned.
There is an alternative. The audio file is just data, and an MQA file is a processed file. There is nothing to stop the recording industry from implementing this themselves.
Here is an example. The studios implements a filter that can be used by one of the readily available audio processing suites as a plug in. Each plug in is specific to the audio file you have – that is the album. All you then need to do is process the album using the plugin, and you have restored any detrimental effects by the recording chain. You may also be able to get the filter for your DAC – so full reverse processing.
There should be no need for any third party that increases the costs of audio files, and the studios can reap the full reward of the sale of the filters, at a much reduced cost to the user – no need to purchase an entire album, just the filter for that album you already own.
There are so many opportunities, where a startup could offer filters based on albums known recording equipment. Many albums list the recording equipment used – so the filter should be easily obtainable.
This is all predicated on whether MQA offers significant benefits, and if it doesn’t over existing high sample rate recordings, or existing CD’s, then you can try the filter modifications for minimal outlay, without purchasing the entire recording again.
Regards,
Shadders.
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
Do we really need MQA ?. The following article explains some aspects.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/beyond-high-resolution/
All that will be known from an MQA recording will be that the audio has been processed, and it cannot guarantee that every part of the chain affected, has been reversed.
MQA is a mathematical process, that has been used in many other parts of the technology industry, and we should not require a third party to implement this, and charge a fee to every part of the audio chain, which includes CD manufacturing.
The studios should be implementing a similar MQA process as standard, since this a known process of reversing the affects of a filter (for example).
Studios may already be implementing MQA aspects already, and stated MQA gains of processing may be minimal – a single filter will not affect the sound (see reference above page 3 – temporal blur).
Every piece of domestic DAC hardware will need to implement the MQA process solution – else you will not be notified that the recording is MQA approved.
What has been stated is that the effects of filtering is cumulative (see link – page 3 temporal blur), and as such, as single filter which is the final link in the chain, which is your DAC does NOT need to be MQA approved – i.e. you can use your existing DAC with negligible impact.
Remastering of CD’s as we have seen are available, may already include this process to some extent – so no requirement to purchase again.
People state that they cannot hear above 20kHz, and as such MQA process is of no benefit to them.
The current high sample rate processing may negate the benefits of MQA since the filters (stated to be the issue), may not impact the sound in the frequency range of hearing. That is, current DSD, Pure Audio, DVD-A products are sufficient and MQA offers no benefit.
The stated implementation of MQA on CD’s whereby the 3 LSB’s are used to provide the upper frequencies above 20kHz, should not be used or encouraged, given many people cannot hear above 20kHz, and this reduction of usable bits for the normal recording to 13bits falls significantly below the red book standard.
In addition, it has not been shown that an MQA encoded CD does NOT impact the sound.
The use of any other processing in the audio chain in the domestic environment may negate any MQA gains, and as such, the extra fees applied to the recording for MQA Ltd costs and anticipated benefits, may be fruitless.
To summarise, MQA recordings will increase the costs of recordings to the user, people will be encouraged to buy new equipment (which is NOT required), and it has not been proven to be beneficial over existing high sample rate formats. The MQA process should be implemented by the recording studios anyway – and their failure to implement the mathematical process (which is not patentable – anyone can do it), is something that should be questioned.
There is an alternative. The audio file is just data, and an MQA file is a processed file. There is nothing to stop the recording industry from implementing this themselves.
Here is an example. The studios implements a filter that can be used by one of the readily available audio processing suites as a plug in. Each plug in is specific to the audio file you have – that is the album. All you then need to do is process the album using the plugin, and you have restored any detrimental effects by the recording chain. You may also be able to get the filter for your DAC – so full reverse processing.
There should be no need for any third party that increases the costs of audio files, and the studios can reap the full reward of the sale of the filters, at a much reduced cost to the user – no need to purchase an entire album, just the filter for that album you already own.
There are so many opportunities, where a startup could offer filters based on albums known recording equipment. Many albums list the recording equipment used – so the filter should be easily obtainable.
This is all predicated on whether MQA offers significant benefits, and if it doesn’t over existing high sample rate recordings, or existing CD’s, then you can try the filter modifications for minimal outlay, without purchasing the entire recording again.
Regards,
Shadders.
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }